Author Topic: WMD's found in Iraq (Read 17409 times)

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #255 on:** January 13, 2004, 05:38:39 PM »

ya know its funny how often the combat vets get assalted and become the victims of character assasination because they dare to dissagree with non vet "conservative patriotic" civilians.

or maybe not

Kieran · « **Reply #256 on:** January 13, 2004, 05:41:17 PM »

Oh you poor martyr.

As for character assassination, how 'bout you read closer and see who is making the most insulting remarks. I suppose I shouldn't call a liar a liar when he lies, so long as he served, eh?

Kieran · « **Reply #257 on:** January 13, 2004, 05:47:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nakhui
Would you like to buy a clue?

"google" or Grokker it.

IIRC, NATO had the authority and backing of the UN, but I don't need to recall... GScholz pretty much slam dunked it.

"Wooosh! Nothing but net"

pssst... here's another hint... NATO and UN work together alot!

Nexus-

Hint- I know. I also know UN and NATO are not one and the same. Do you?

Maniac · « **Reply #258 on:** January 13, 2004, 05:50:57 PM »

Quote

I also know UN and NATO are not one and the same. Do you?

UN, EU, NATO aint the same? hey WTF!!??!!

In by the way.

Kieran · « **Reply #259 on:** January 13, 2004, 06:28:42 PM »

Now, now now... you are assuming too much...

I was wrong about the resolution and freely admit it. You are taking that to mean you were correct on all other points, and you are wrong.

You assumed I didn't know about Serbia. I never answered, that wasn't the point.

You assumed I didn't know when it happened, even though the timeline I gave should have made it painfully obvious I did.

You assumed before we ever got into points I knew nothing about it- and you are wrong.

You said you were part of the UN forces, but you originally didn't say where. I can't read your mind, so guess what? I didn't know where you were. Duh. I'm in the US. Tell me which city and state (look in my profile if you need help). Same argument.

The bottom line wasn't to discuss the particulars of the region, only the UN and NATO participation in the events. Now I give you points for distracting my attention away from the point I was trying to make- That the US's action in Iraq is not without precedent- good job.

But... you took your original sweeping generalization of what you perceive to be Bush supporters, stuck some words in their mouths, and made a mocking political comment. Free BBS, fine, but that wasn't what was said in any context. You then proceeded to show your skirt about your feelings about the US, then got huffy when I flipped a bit back at you. You ACTUALLY thought I was serious about hating Scandinavians, and weren't smart enough to see the sarcasm in it. And I have to admit, much of this has been for my entertainment, but I am curious how far you will go to avoid admitting the obvious- you did start off not only with a lie, but with an insult as well. You went as far as to express your disgust not only with me, but all Americans. That I thought was particularly poignant. hehe... Gee whiz, why would anyone take issue with that?

I do have to apologize to Nilson though... I shouldn't have let him get caught up in this. I don't really hate all Scandinavians. I do find many of them condescending, but there are quite a few condescending Americans, too.

Kieran · « **Reply #260 on:** January 13, 2004, 06:42:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz
This is completely and utterly pointless. Good night.

Well, I guess I have to put you in the troll folder. My opinion of you just dropped. All that other stuff.

Just so you know you did make the "imminent threat" and "can't trust the US" comments. Hey! I should add that "imminent threat" business to my sig!

Yeager · « **Reply #261 on:** January 13, 2004, 07:16:43 PM »

the winner of an argument is too often determined by who is left standing at then end of the day. Then again, there is a certain beauty to it.

What shall we discuss in the morning

Toad · « **Reply #262 on:** January 13, 2004, 07:30:14 PM »

Lawdy, Lawdy... this is just TOO funny.

Scholz and Nexus building a house on sand.

Wanna talk about the former Yugoslavia, the Balkans?

The NATO charter:

Quote

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked[/u] by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

NATO was a defensive alliance by CHARTER.

None of the entities that came out of the former Yugoslavia WERE members of NATO.

Where was the armed attack against a NATO member in this case? When did it occur?

Which Party to the NATO treaty were they assisting there?

Now, let's talk about "violated charters" some more.

Oh... wait....... I see. It's OK to violate a Charter if Scholz and Nexus think it's OK. Gotcha.

Anyway, in your counter, please quote and link the addendum to the NATO Charter that says NATO can in fact use military force against non-NATO nations when NO NATO MEMBER IS UNDER ARMED ATTACKED. It'd be nice if you can show where NATO is now the military arm of the UN, too.

Oh, yeah.... one other little tiny thing.

Can one of you, either Scholz or Nexus, show me which one of the U.N. Security Council Balkan resolutions, and there was a number of them, authorized the use of force against any of the parties to the conflict? Specifically authorized the use of force against any of the parties to the conflict?

Think carefully before you answer because this authorization of the use of force Security Council thing has a very current parallel.... which I'm sure we'll all get a kick out of discussing.

Thanks for making my evening! This IS a great thread.

john9001 · « **Reply #263 on:** January 13, 2004, 09:58:01 PM »

the USA did not "invade"iraq, short history lesson.

*iraq invades kuwait.

*US and allies/UN kick iraq's butt.

* iraq begs for a CEASE FIRE

*US/UN say ok , but iraq must meet certain conditions.

*12 years later iraq still has not met conditions of CEASE FIRE

* US and allies RESUME war, finish kicking iraq butt.

*anti-USA crowd start whining "no fair"

Nakhui · « **Reply #264 on:** January 14, 2004, 10:23:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Thanks for making my evening! This IS a great thread.

Toad, you gonna have to start a new thread to discussion this issue.

Would love to have a thread that stays on topic and a few scope rules for keeping the discussion focused.

Perhaps a modirator for dismissing irrelevant information and inflamatory comments - someone we can agree who is unbiased and who doesn't participate in the discussion except to inform the debators when they have strayed from the subject.

Would you like to setup such a thread... state the scope at the top... I would be happy to engage you in such a forum.

The problem with any discussion on a BBS is... it's not a dicussion... people just refuse to agree even after being presented with enough credible citations and logic to refute their point of view.

None of the entities that came out of the former Yugoslavia WERE members of NATO.

Where was the armed attack against a NATO member in this case? When did it occur?

Which Party to the NATO treaty were they assisting there?

To answer your question... your looking at one article which address self defense and the authority of NATO members to assist other NATO members in such action.

I don't have time at the moment to research what I'm about to say... so sure take it with a grain a doubt and disbelief.

Usually charters allow for admendment and actions which are not accounted for in the text of their charters... such as the common legal clause.... "other duties as required"

I suspect there is such a clause... since NATO members DID voted before committing to action in the Balkans... and thus by their vote established the legal authority under the NATO charter to commit forces to assist the UN.

Again... I'll reiterate "democratic" governments base their actions from law... in some form or another.

Maniac · « **Reply #265 on:** January 14, 2004, 10:28:47 AM »

Quote

the USA did not "invade"iraq, short history lesson.

*iraq invades kuwait.

*US and allies/UN kick iraq's butt.

* iraq begs for a CEASE FIRE

*US/UN say ok , but iraq must meet certain conditions.

*12 years later iraq still has not met conditions of CEASE FIRE

* US and allies RESUME war, finish kicking iraq butt.

*anti-USA crowd start whining "no fair"

Bull****.

Nakhui · « **Reply #266 on:** January 14, 2004, 10:30:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
the USA did not "invade"iraq, short history lesson.

*iraq invades kuwait.
*US and allies/UN kick iraq's butt.
* iraq begs for a CEASE FIRE
*US/UN say ok , but iraq must meet certain conditions.
*12 years later iraq still has not met conditions of CEASE FIRE
* US and allies RESUME war, finish kicking iraq butt.
*anti-USA crowd start whining "no fair"

If only the world were as simple as this kind of logic.
Perhaps some day it will be.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #267 on:** January 14, 2004, 10:39:01 AM »

Here is the Kosovo case viewed through iraq 2003 lenses:

There was no assistance of the UN in the Kosovo matter. There was no UN approval. NATO, an independant military allience, simply acted out of blatant evil agression in terrorizing, bombing and preparing to invade if no surrender an innocent country Serbia which was no longer posing any threat to any NATO members or its neighbors. Clear wish and instance on regime removal or clear regime poilicy change under thread of continued economic sanctions.

Right? This was evil, correct? Just like Iraq? Lets see.

An unprovoked, preemptive attack? CHECK

No UN approval? CHECK

Attack carried out by non UN Military allience? CHECK

NATO is EVIL!!!!!!!

Addendum (kosovo specific):

USA president beloved by European masses: CHECK

Ahhh, thats the difference.. No?

Much of this motivated because many of you simply hate or dislike President Bush... Be honest about it at least...

Toad · « **Reply #268 on:** January 14, 2004, 10:45:01 AM »

I'll be happy to wait while you (or Scholz) do your research.

Threads wander all over, depending upon what arguments or "evidence" posters introduce.

I didn't bring up the Balkans, but when it came up, it's fair to point out that NATO's Charter was clearly violated when NATO countries ATTACKED entities that had not attacked any NATO country. In short, it was an illegal use of the NATO alliance. Research all you like; you won't find any changes that were made or addendums right before NATO, the purely defensive alliance ATTACKED the Balkans.

Further, I can't find ANY UN SC resolution on the Balkans that authorizes the use of force. None. They all have the same vacuous comments that amount to "if you don't do what we tell you, we're going to..stamp our feet and THINK ABOUT IT SOME MORE!"

Lastly, that ties it directly to the Iraq situation. If you recall, the "anti-war" argument was that there was no UN SC resolution that specifically authorized the use of force.

Gotta laugh then, at the discussion/argument recently in this thread.

To paraphrase:

"Violating the UN Charter is BAD! Soldiers that do that are CRIMINALS! Violating the NATO Charter is GOOD! Soldiers that do that are HEROS!"

"The UN SC Balkan resolution, written with almost the exact same weazel-wording as the UN SC Iraq resolution, authorized the use of force in the Balkans but the Iraq resolution did not."

Research all you like. I want to see either or both of you justify this stuff. Like I said, why watch Leno? This is much better!

Mickey1992 · « **Reply #269 on:** January 14, 2004, 11:59:55 AM »

False alarm, go ahead and delete this thread.

===================================
Tests Show No Agent in Iraq Mortar Shells

Associated Press

CAMP EDEN, Iraq - Tests by Danish and American experts indicate there is no chemical warfare agent in mortar shells unearthed last week in southern Iraq (news - web sites), but more testing is needed to confirm the findings, the Danish military reported Wednesday.

The preliminary findings cast doubt whether the suspicious shells will become the "smoking gun" proving that Iraq still maintained supplies of banned chemical weapons when the United States and its allies launched the war last March.

The U.S.-led Iraq Survey Group conducted tests on five shells and none of them showed traces of chemical agents, the Danish army said in a statement released in Copenhagen.

"Based on the tests, the experts conclude that none of the shells contain chemical warfare agents," it said, adding that more tests are needed for final confirmation.

It is believed the shells, discovered last week by Danish troops, are from the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.